| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
willytex
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2004 11:01 am Post subject: So, you "read over 200 books"? |
 |
|
| Quote: | Uncle - So, you "read over 200 books on the Cathars"
but not a single book on the Gnostics?
|
Uncle Tantra wrote
| Quote: | The Cathars weren't Gnostics.
|
Uncle - If you haven't read a single book on the Gnostics, how would you
know?
| Quote: | A few people who consider themselves neo-Gnostics
like to think they were, but they weren't.
|
I don't consider myself a "neo-Gnostic" and I'll base my conclusion on the
evidence. In what book or journal does it say that the Cathars were NOT
Gnostics?
| Quote: | Try reading a few books on the Cathars themselves
and you might figure out the difference.
|
That the Cathars were dualistic Gnostics?
| Quote: | Oh. I forget who I'm talking to.
|
I guess you conviently "forgot" about the folks over on
<alt.religion.gnostic> too.
Barry, pay attention! : )
Don't you realize that the first dualist philosophy was the Indian Sankhya
(pertaining to number), a Vedic first cousin to the Avestan dualism of the
Persian Zoroaster and the Manichaen Manes, Sankhya being the basis of all
subsequent Asian dualisms including Vaishnavism, Tantra, Gnostic dualism and
the Chinese Yin-Yang? Go figure.
From: Uncle Tantra (tantricone@aol.com)
Subject: Re: Question for Shemp (was Re: Question for Petrus)
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2004-01-21 15:43:59 PST
| Quote: | Uncle - So, you "read over 200 books on the Cathars"
but not a single book on the Gnostics?
|
Yup. The Cathars weren't Gnostics. A
few people who consider themselves neo-
Gnostics like to think they were, but they
weren't. Try reading a few books on the
Cathars themselves and you might figure
out the difference.
Oh. I forget who I'm talking to. Never mind...
:-)
From: Kater Moggin
Subject: Gnosis + Knowledge
Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic
Date: 2003-10-12 14:15:38 PST
Catharism is one of the forms of medieval gnosticism. Bogumils are derivbed
from Paulicans, Paulicans from Manicheans, Manicheans from Gnostics. Thus
Cathars are derived from Gnostics. The ancient gnostics and the Cathars --
not to mention the Paulicians and Bogomils -- share distinctive qualities.
I don't hesitate to put the Bogomils in the same bin -- the one labeled
medieval gnosticism -- as the Cathars and Paulicans. One can speculate about
a link from ancient gnosticism to the Cathars. Going backwards, it would run
first to the Bogomils, then the Paulicans (the most likely influence on the
Bogomil), and then back to the Manichaeans or maybe even the Marcionites,
who stuck around late, especially in the East; ditto the Valentinians.
From: penitent leper
Subject: Gnosis + Knowledge
Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic
Date: 2003-10-12 14:15:38 PST
Gnosticism is preexistent and sempiternal, and does not spring from stupid
humans, but from the Logos. this underlines the absolute necessity of
Docetism.
Gnosticism claims to derive from Spirit alone. Its primary data is not
derived from human systems, beliefs, religions, philosophies. Gnosticism
"knows" this in the same way that Buddhism "knows" that its primary data is
not derived from an ego - Gotama's ego having been extinguished on
attainment of Nibbana. Or in the same way that the Christian mystic "knows"
that Jesus' parables are not derived from an anxious, grasping self - Jesus'
ego having been extinguished in enlightenment experiences such as the
descent of The Spirit Like A Dove at his baptism by John in the Jordan.
This "knowing" is gnosis - it's pneumatic insight, not equivalent to
"knowledge about, and about" - such as dictionary, formulaic, scholarly, or
scientific knowledge. To ask "How a Gnostic knows" is to ask how a mystic or
an enlightened Buddhist knows the state of enlightenment. If you're asking
for proof of such knowing, I doubt that any system can offer such - other
than to invite the questioner to study and practice - and then decide for
him/herself. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Kater Moggin
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2004 10:33 am Post subject: Re: So, you "read over 200 books"? |
|
|
willytex <willytex@yahoo.com>:
| Quote: | From: Kater Moggin
Subject: Gnosis + Knowledge
Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic
Date: 2003-10-12 14:15:38 PST
Catharism is one of the forms of medieval gnosticism. Bogumils are derivbed
from Paulicans, Paulicans from Manicheans, Manicheans from Gnostics. Thus
Cathars are derived from Gnostics. The ancient gnostics and the Cathars --
not to mention the Paulicians and Bogomils -- share distinctive qualities.
I don't hesitate to put the Bogomils in the same bin -- the one labeled
medieval gnosticism -- as the Cathars and Paulicans. One can speculate about
a link from ancient gnosticism to the Cathars. Going backwards, it would run
first to the Bogomils, then the Paulicans (the most likely influence on the
Bogomil), and then back to the Manichaeans or maybe even the Marcionites,
who stuck around late, especially in the East; ditto the Valentinians.
|
That's one seriously fucked-up job of quoting. Willy took
stuff from two different posts of mine, chopped it up and
threw the results together with comments from Klaus, presenting
the whole thing like it was my writing.
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mouldy Jester
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2004 10:39 am Post subject: Re: So, you "read over 200 books"? |
|
|
"Kater Moggin" <moggin@attbiTHORN.com> wrote in message
news:moggin-B7A13D.23265022012004@netnews.comcast.net...
| Quote: | willytex <willytex@yahoo.com>:
From: Kater Moggin
Subject: Gnosis + Knowledge
Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic
Date: 2003-10-12 14:15:38 PST
Catharism is one of the forms of medieval gnosticism. Bogumils are
derivbed
from Paulicans, Paulicans from Manicheans, Manicheans from Gnostics.
Thus
Cathars are derived from Gnostics. The ancient gnostics and the
Cathars --
not to mention the Paulicians and Bogomils -- share distinctive
qualities.
I don't hesitate to put the Bogomils in the same bin -- the one labeled
medieval gnosticism -- as the Cathars and Paulicans. One can speculate
about
a link from ancient gnosticism to the Cathars. Going backwards, it would
run
first to the Bogomils, then the Paulicans (the most likely influence on
the
Bogomil), and then back to the Manichaeans or maybe even the
Marcionites,
who stuck around late, especially in the East; ditto the Valentinians.
That's one seriously fucked-up job of quoting. Willy took
stuff from two different posts of mine, chopped it up and
threw the results together with comments from Klaus, presenting
the whole thing like it was my writing.
|
That's what happened?? Had me completely lost.
--
Mouldy Jester
"You really *are* Moggins kiss-ass lapdoggie aren'tcha?"
--Nuvoadam, 17th January, 2004
(in reference to myself). |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kater Moggin
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2004 5:37 am Post subject: Re: So, you "read over 200 books"? |
|
|
I see that Uncle Tantrum removed alt.religion.gnostic from
the newsgroups-line. I'll put it back.
tantricone@aol.com (Uncle Tantra):
| Quote: | Hi Kater...look, I appreciate the three posts
you seem to have made here recently on
the Gnostic/Cathar thang, but I'm not gonna
address them
|
You already confessed you're "simply ill-informed" due to
the superficiality of your readings about gnosticism. So
unless you'd like to explain how come you're repeating the same
bad info, there's nothing for you to say.
| Quote: | because we have a difference
of opinion, that's all.
|
Again, you already admitted that you're in the wrong. And
so you are. You argued that the Cathars are separated from
the ancient gnostics by a "major difference" in thinking on the
Creation. According to you, the ancient gnostic posited a
flawless world later screwed up by "the fall of man," while the
Cathars believed it was a mess from the beginning. But I
demonstrated that the ancient gnostics took the view you denied.
Ptolemy and Marcus were my examples. You couldn't provide
even one case fitting your description. Your claim was founded
on a falsehood.
| Quote: | there is simply no case to be made
that the Cathars were Gnostics
|
Too late -- I've already made one. You refused to address
it.
news:moggin-95C07C.23064022012004@netnews.comcast.net
news:moggin-E96BD0.23122122012004@netnews.comcast.net
news:moggin-4A2BCF.23153122012004@netnews.comcast.net
| Quote: | the vast majority of serious scholars on
the Cathar heresy, who tend to agree with me.
|
Argument-from-authority minus the authority. Doesn't even
rise to the level of fallacy.
| Quote: | If you choose to see the whole world
of Dualist thought (which predates Gnosticism)
as branches of Gnosticism,cool. Continue
to do so.
|
You're continuing to lie. I never insisted all dualism is
a form of gnosticism. The opposite: I pointed out Plato
and Zoroastrianism _differ_ from gnosticism, ancient as well as
medieval.
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kater Moggin
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 12:19 am Post subject: Re: So, you "read over 200 books"? |
|
|
Uncle Tantra is ducking and dodging, so I'll quote his own
words again:
Me, I was simply ill-informed due to
the superficiality of my readings
about gnosticism.
Just so. As he admitted, Uncle Tantrum's idea the Cathars
differ basically from their ancient gnostic counterparts is
based on mis-information -- in specific, Unc's misunderstanding
of ancient gnostic mythology.
Details:
news:moggin-A6B672.18305323012004@netnews.comcast.net
news:moggin-95C07C.23064022012004@netnews.comcast.net
news:moggin-E96BD0.23122122012004@netnews.comcast.net
news:moggin-4A2BCF.23153122012004@netnews.comcast.net
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
willytex
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 4:18 am Post subject: Re: So, you "read over 200 books"? |
|
|
Kater Moggin wrote
| Quote: | That's one seriously fucked-up job of quoting.
|
Kater - I don't think so, Sir. You may want to check the thread again.
Kater Moggin, Message Number 103 in thread "Judge Judy and her Many Hats
(was Re: Gnosis + Knowledge) October 10, 2003.
http://tinyurl.com/279rb
| Quote: | Willy took stuff from two different posts of mine, chopped
it up
|
You are mistaken - the words are almost verbatim quotations from your post
of October 10, 2003.
| Quote: | and threw the results together with comments from Klaus,
presenting the whole thing like it was my writing.
|
I did not quote Klaus Schilling. Again you are mistaken.
From: Kater Moggin (moggin@attbiTHORN.com)
Subject: Re: Judge Judy and her Many Hats (was Re: Gnosis + Knowledge)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic
Date: 2003-10-12 09:11:20 PST
Message 103 in thread
Have you started reading them yet? Nobody -- me included
-- claims to establish a solid historical chain, but the
notion is hardly unusual. Maybe the phrase I used is throwing
you off, since the standard term is (anyway was -- it's
gotten unfashionable) neo-Manichaeanism, covering the
Bogomils and Paulicans as well as the Cathars.
Of course the Bogomils are, or at least very much seem to
be the immediate source of Catharism. Big deal. You're
missing several points at once, so I'm not sure where to begin.
Lemme see.
First of all, I don't hesitate to put the Bogomils in the
same bin -- the one labeled medieval gnosticism -- as the
Cathars and Paulicans. Second, I'm not insisting that ye olde
gnostics were whispering in their ears.
One can speculate about a link from ancient gnosticism to
the Cathars. Going backwards, it would run first to the
Bogomils, then the Paulicans (the most likely influence on the
_pop_ Bogomil), and then back to the Manichaeans or maybe
even the Marcionites, who stuck around late, especially in the
East; ditto the Valentinians.
Again, that's speculation. I see the Cathars, et al., as
gnostics because of the similarity between them and the
ancient gnostic schools, most of all on distinctive items like
the division between the Creator of this world and God the
Father, the true God, along with its accompanying anti-cosmism.
Some of the parallels are pretty fine-grained. I have in
mind the reading of John 1:3-4 shared -- according to the
sources -- by the Nassenes and a piece of Cathar writing known
as the "Manichaean Treatise." Hippolytus says that the
Naasenes used those verses from John in distinguishing between
the true God (my term, for convenience), who created "all
things" and the demiurge who created this world -- the nothing
that John says was made apart from God (_Refutation Of All
Heresies_ 5.3). Same goes in the "Manichaean Treatise," which
brings in Paul, too, arguing evil spirits and evil men are
nothing (being w/out charity -- that's where Paul serves), and
therefore weren't made by god, since "without him was made
nothing" (MT 13). Dunno about you, but I'd call that a pretty
striking similarity.
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn
From: penitent leper (bastaschs@peak.org)
Subject: Re: Judge Judy and her Many Hats (was Re: Gnosis + Knowledge)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic
Date: 2003-10-12 14:15:38 PST
Message 94 in thread
Gnosticism claims to derive from Spirit alone. Its primary data is
not derived from human systems, beliefs, religions, philosophies.
Gnosticism "knows" this in the same way that Buddhism "knows" that its
primary data is not derived from an ego - Gotama's ego having been
extinguished on attainment of Nibbana. Or in the same way that the
Christian mystic "knows" that Jesus' parables are not derived from an
anxious, grasping self - Jesus' ego having been extinguished in
enlightenment experiences such as the descent of The Spirit Like A
Dove at his baptism by John in the Jordan.
This "knowing" is gnosis - it's pneumatic insight, not equivalent to
"knowledge about, and about" - such as dictionary, formulaic,
scholarly, or scientific knowledge. To ask "How a Gnostic knows" is
to ask how a mystic or an enlightened Buddhist knows the state of
enlightenment. If you're asking for _proof_ of such knowing, I doubt
that any system can offer such - other than to invite the questioner
to study and practice - and then decide for him/herself. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
willytex
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 4:44 am Post subject: Re: So, you "read over 200 books"? |
|
|
Mouldy Jester wrote
| Quote: | That's what happened?? Had me completely lost.
|
Jester - Would it be asking to much that you read the messages BEFORE you
make your comments? Try to keep up and pay attention, please. I'm trying to
make a point here about the Gnostics.
See if you can follow this:
Pansy said the [Gnostic] Emperor was wearing new clothing. Willytex said
that the Emperor was not wearing any new clothes. Willytex pointed out that
the Indo-Aryans brought dualistic philosophy to "Iran" in the form of the
Avesta, and to India in the form of the Veda. Thus Willytex inferred that
the Indo-Iranians were a great influence on the Gnostics, who adopted, among
other things, the dualistic doctrine of Persian Zoroaster and ergo, the
Indian Sankhya.
Uncle Tantra said that Willytex was a "loon" who only wanted to promote
"TM". Judy pointed out that Uncle Tantra was a liar.
But, Kater said the Cathars were Gnostics. Uncle says they were not
Gnostics, but Dualists. Willytex said the Gnostics were influenced by the
Persians and the Indians who composed the first dualist philosophy in the
Vedas and the Avesta.
Uncle said he read over 200 books on the Cathars, but not a single book on
the Gnostics has he read. Kater apparently, hasn't read one book on the
Indians. Willytex has read many books on the Gnostics, the Persians and the
Indians.
Willytex waxed Uncle Tantra; Kater and Judy waxed Uncle Tantra; Willytex
waxed Kater, Pansy AND Uncle Tantra. Willytex doesn't have an argument with
Judy and she's very well-read.
The Emperor [Gnostics] were most certainly NOT wearing any new clothing.
Do you want to be next, Jester? I have already delineated my sources and
references including works cited.
From: Uncle Tantra (tantricone@aol.com)
Subject: Re: Emperor's New Clothes
Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic
Date: 2003-10-16 06:48:09 PST
Message 27 in thread
You really ARE just like Judy, aren't you?
Look, Kater...you keep believing what
you want, eh? It seems to make you
happy doing so, almost as much as trying
to sound superior because you know The
Truth. :-)
You believe that the Cathars were Gnostics?
Cool. You keep believing that. It does not
necessarily make it so.
You believe that the end of the Cathars
occurred with the fall of Montsegur, even
though history says otherwise? Cool.
You keep believing that. It does not nec-
essarily make it so.
You really SHOULD consider dating Judy.
I hear she's fairly attractive for a 62-year-
old, and she's been practicing the (quote)
"most effective technique to develop enlight-
enment" on the planet for over 30 years now,
so she knows The Truth about everything,
too. You two would make a lovely couple.
:-)
Unc
From: Uncle Tantra (tantricone@aol.com)
Subject: Re: Emperor's New Clothes
Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic, alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2003-10-17 06:47:23 PST
Message 87 in thread
Hope you don't mind if I step in here, PL. Willy's a loon from
a.m.t. who tends to (IMO) make things up to suit his fancies.
But when he starts making them up about the subject I've been
researching for quite a while, someone should correct him, so
I will hopefully aid you in doing so.
Just FYI, this claim comes from Willy's version of a general TM
trend, to claim that the Vedas represent the source of all spiritual
knowledge, and that pretty much everything was derived from that.
It's an interesting notion, but demonstrably untrue, so as far as I
can tell even within the TM trip the only people who believe it are
those who believe pretty much *anything* that Maharishi sez.
Based on TM, Willy would have a very different definition of trans-
cendental having to do with the ability to subjectively transcend all
thought and objective perception during meditation. In my experience,
he doesn't deal gracefully with finding a term he defines in one way
being used very differently in another context, as you did above.
It's a TM thang. It goes along the lines of "because we have privy
to the highest teaching on the planet, every tradition that doesn't
seem to agree with ours is wrong or incomplete. If seen in the true
light of our superior knowledge, it would be revealed to be the same
teaching that *we* believe in." I'm paraphrasing, of course...I doubt
anyone ever put it in exactly those terms, but in my time with the TM
organization I met hundreds...maybe thousands...of TMers who believed
exactly that.
Willy really assumes that there *has* to be a counterpart within gnos-
ticism to the notions of enlightenment he is familiar with in TM (full
and total liberation from the world of matter and full and total inte-
gration with the world of spirit while in a physical body), because TM
is *right*, so there *must* be a counterpart. He probably believes
that there is something in gnostic doctrine that most of its adnerents
are "missing" that, if they *weren't* missing it, would reveal the
ultimate truth of the universe in terms of Unity, not duality, because
that's the ultimate view that TM claims, therefore it has to be *right*.
I wouldn't take it too personally.
Unc |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
willytex
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 5:08 am Post subject: Re: So, you "read over 200 books"? |
|
|
Uncle Tantra wrote
| Quote: | If you choose to see the whole world of Dualist
thought (which predates Gnosticism) as branches
of Gnosticism, cool.
|
Kater Moggin wrote
| Quote: | You're continuing to lie.
|
Kater - That's been part of the problem with Uncle Tantra. He's arguing the
dualistic doctrine for the Gnostics and the Cathars, yet I can show that
dualism orginated in the Avesta and the Veda. There is some clear evidence
that the Indo-Aryans greatly influenced Gnostic doctrines, particulary the
dualism doctrine. Apparently, Manes spent two years in India studying
Mahayana Buddhism, which is derived from the ancient Sankhya dualism,
restated by Kapila.
From: Lot 49 (willytex@yahoo.com)
Subject: Re: Emperor's New Clothes
Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic, alt.meditation.transcendental
Date: 2003-10-19 08:59:14 PST
Kater - It's here now, wasn't it?
| Quote: | What is it this time?
|
Kalachakra time?
| Quote: | I hope you'll do better than your last several tries.
|
I'll try to keep an open mind. How many times do people post here before
they're considered to be a member of a Gnostic cult? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kater Moggin
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 10:09 am Post subject: Re: So, you "read over 200 books"? |
|
|
tantricone@aol.com (Uncle Tantrum):
| Quote: | You crossposted to a.r.g. recently in the
hope of restarting an argument with one
Kater Moggin, who seems to be second
only to someone we all know too well here
in his need to keep arguments going forever.
|
This argument ended back when Uncle Tantrum said he was in
the wrong. He wrote:
Me, I was simply ill-informed due to
the superficiality of my readings
about gnosticism.
Just so. As he admitted, Uncle Tantrum's idea the Cathars
differ basically from their ancient gnostic counterparts is
based on bad information -- specifically Unc's misunderstanding
of ancient gnostic mythology.
Details:
news:moggin-A6B672.18305323012004@netnews.comcast.net
news:moggin-95C07C.23064022012004@netnews.comcast.net
news:moggin-E96BD0.23122122012004@netnews.comcast.net
news:moggin-4A2BCF.23153122012004@netnews.comcast.net
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kater Moggin
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 10:24 am Post subject: Re: So, you "read over 200 books"? |
|
|
willytex <willytex@yahoo.com>:
| Quote: | You may want to check the thread again.
|
O.k., I double-checked. I was right: you did a truly bad
job of quoting, chopping up my posts (three of them, I see --
one more than I'd realized), editing the results, and combining
them with some remarks from Klaus.
| Quote: | You are mistaken -
|
Not even a little.
| Quote: | I did not quote Klaus Schilling. Again you are mistaken.
|
Again you're full of crap. I'll show you. You lifted the
first line -- "Catharism is one of the forms of medieval
gnosticism" -- from a post of mine, but you left out everything
else I said there.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z55D52D27
Message ID: <moggin-7022A8.09510412102003@netnews.attbi.com>
You took the next two lines -- "Bogumils are derivbed from
Paulicans, Paulicans from Manicheans, Manicheans from
Gnostics. Thus Cathars are derived from Gnostics" -- from Klaus.
http://tinyurl.com/2ngsj
Message-ID: <87smlyjrsr.fsf@debian.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-shoot-me>
The following bit -- "The ancient gnostics and the Cathars
-- not to mention the Paulicians and Bogomils -- share
distinctive qualities" -- you took out of a second post of mine.
http://tinyurl.com/2gm6a
Message-ID: <moggin-4D3727.17095412102003@netnews.attbi.com>
What's left of your messed-up quote comes from yet a third
post I wrote.
I don't hesitate to put the Bogomils in the same bin
-- the one labeled medieval gnosticism -- as the
Cathars and Paulicans. One can speculate about a link
from ancient gnosticism to the Cathars. Going
backwards, it would run first to the Bogomils, then
the Paulicans (the most likely influence on the
Bogomil), and then back to the Manichaeans or maybe
even the Marcionites, who stuck around
late, especially in the East; ditto the Valentinians.
That's your misedited version of some comments that I made
here:
http://tinyurl.com/2zgc8
Message-ID: <moggin-BCA387.12073712102003@netnews.attbi.com>
In sum, you grabbed bits and pieces from three of my posts
and combined them, after doing a little editing, with an
extract from something by Klaus, offering the results as though
you had quoted me verbatim.
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kater Moggin
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 10:37 am Post subject: Re: So, you "read over 200 books"? |
|
|
willytex <willytex@yahoo.com>:
| Quote: | Pansy said the [Gnostic] Emperor was wearing new clothing.
|
You hardly got started, and already you screwed up. Pansy
was referring to a famous story by Hans Christian Anderson
called "The Emperor's New Clothes." You might want to read the
thing before you go on. Gnosticism is the little kid (in
Pansy's analogy) who says that the Emperor (the Creator of this
world) is wearing no clothes at all.
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
willytex
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2004 11:59 am Post subject: Re: So, you "read over 200 books"? |
|
|
Kater Moggin wrote
| Quote: | Again you're full of crap. I'll show you.
|
Kater - I stand corrected - I am full of crap.
The following post is from Kater Moggin:
From: Kater Moggin (moggin@attbiTHORN.com)
Subject: Re: Judge Judy and her Many Hats (was Re: Gnosis + Knowledge)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic
Date: 2003-10-12 09:11:20 PST
Message 103 in thread
Have you started reading them yet? Nobody -- me included
-- claims to establish a solid historical chain, but the
notion is hardly unusual. Maybe the phrase I used is throwing
you off, since the standard term is (anyway was -- it's
gotten unfashionable) neo-Manichaeanism, covering the
Bogomils and Paulicans as well as the Cathars.
Of course the Bogomils are, or at least very much seem to
be the immediate source of Catharism. Big deal. You're
missing several points at once, so I'm not sure where to begin.
Lemme see.
First of all, I don't hesitate to put the Bogomils in the
same bin -- the one labeled medieval gnosticism -- as the
Cathars and Paulicans. Second, I'm not insisting that ye olde
gnostics were whispering in their ears.
One can speculate about a link from ancient gnosticism to
the Cathars. Going backwards, it would run first to the
Bogomils, then the Paulicans (the most likely influence on the
_pop_ Bogomil), and then back to the Manichaeans or maybe
even the Marcionites, who stuck around late, especially in the
East; ditto the Valentinians.
Again, that's speculation. I see the Cathars, et al., as
gnostics because of the similarity between them and the
ancient gnostic schools, most of all on distinctive items like
the division between the Creator of this world and God the
Father, the true God, along with its accompanying anti-cosmism.
Some of the parallels are pretty fine-grained. I have in
mind the reading of John 1:3-4 shared -- according to the
sources -- by the Nassenes and a piece of Cathar writing known
as the "Manichaean Treatise." Hippolytus says that the
Naasenes used those verses from John in distinguishing between
the true God (my term, for convenience), who created "all
things" and the demiurge who created this world -- the nothing
that John says was made apart from God (_Refutation Of All
Heresies_ 5.3). Same goes in the "Manichaean Treatise," which
brings in Paul, too, arguing evil spirits and evil men are
nothing (being w/out charity -- that's where Paul serves), and
therefore weren't made by god, since "without him was made
nothing" (MT 13). Dunno about you, but I'd call that a pretty
striking similarity.
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn
The folowing post is from Klaus Schilling.
From: pessolo@freemail.it (pessolo@freemail.it)
Subject: Re: Judge Judy and her Many Hats (was Re: Gnosis + Knowledge)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic
Date: 2003-10-12 12:43:12 PST
bogumils are derivbed from Paulicans, Paulicans from Manicheans,
Manicheans from Gnostics. thus Cathars are derived from Gnostics.
Moggers can understand this simple fact, 'cletantra can't.
Klaus Schilling
The following post is from Barry Wright (Uncle Tantra):
From: Uncle Tantra (tantricone@aol.com)
Subject: Re: Judge Judy and her Many Hats (was Re: Gnosis + Knowledge)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.gnostic
Date: 2003-10-12 09:47:25 PST
One major difference being that most
gnosticism I have read (which admittedly
is very little) seems to posit a creation that
at one point was *not* flawed, which then
*became* flawed with the "fall of man." A
major belief of Catharism seems to have
been that there was *never* a time in which
creation was not flawed. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kater Moggin
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2004 1:06 am Post subject: Re: So, you "read over 200 books"? |
|
|
tantricone@aol.com (Uncle Tantra):
| Quote: | The argument ended when
|
This argument ended back when Uncle Tantrum said he was in
the wrong. He wrote:
Me, I was simply ill-informed due to
the superficiality of my readings
about gnosticism.
Just so. As he admitted, Uncle Tantrum's idea the Cathars
differ basically from their ancient gnostic counterparts is
based on bad information -- specifically Unc's misunderstanding
of ancient gnostic mythology.
| Quote: | I know little about Gnosticism per se.
|
Agreed.
| Quote: | I made some assumptions about Gnosticism
|
Uncle Tantrum based his case on a falsehood, as he's since
conceded.
| Quote: | he failed to either impress me or convince me.
|
Wrong again. I convinced you to admit that you were badly
informed about gnosticism.
-- Moggin
to e-mail, remove the thorn |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Mouldy Jester
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2004 10:55 am Post subject: Re: So, you "read over 200 books"? |
|
|
"willytex" <willytex@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:T4-dnbwBcMLBaI_dU-KYkQ@texas.net...
| Quote: | Mouldy Jester wrote
That's what happened?? Had me completely lost.
Jester - Would it be asking to much that you read the messages BEFORE you
make your comments? Try to keep up and pay attention, please. I'm trying
to
make a point here about the Gnostics.
|
In your case, yes it would be. Your self-conscious affectations of
confidence are truly hilarious. Have a nice existence.
--
Mouldy Jester
"It is dangerous to be sincere unless you are also stupid."
"Martyrdom is the only way in which a man can become famous without
ability."
-- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
